?ybu? is not a valid string in Lojban, saying ?ybu? in Lojban would be not
grammatical. There must be a glottal stop after ?y?.
Valid would be y bu or y.bu.

Comment #2: Re: Not grammatical official entry :-(

Jonathan (Tue Jun 30 10:42:48 2015)

I've always thought of ybu as special anyway, since y is grammatically invisible anywhere else. Since ybu always begins with a glottal stop, I don't believe the existence of this "unconventional cmavo" would break self-segregation.

Comment #3: Re: Not grammatical official entry :-(

Jonathan (Tue Jun 30 10:49:26 2015)

Oh and please don't downvote all the translations just because of an issue like this. A vote-score of 0 or less would prevent propagation to collators like vlasisku or sutysisku; this is not desirable for an official entry.

Comment #4: Re: Not grammatical official entry :-(

Alex Burka (Tue Jun 30 14:46:46 2015)

Wuzzy wrote: > ?ybu? is not a valid string in Lojban, saying ?ybu? in Lojban would be not > grammatical. There must be a glottal stop after ?y?. > Valid would be y bu or y.bu. la .camxes. is the parser used by jbovlaste and it has no problem with ybu. It is special-cased in the informal morphology description and in the parser itself.

Comment #5: Re: Not grammatical official entry :-( Alex Burka (Tue Jun 30 14:50:44 2015) WTF, jbovlaste murdered my links. Informal morphology: http://mw.lojban.org/papri/informal_description_of_the_PEG_morphology_algor ithm/condensed#Words Parser rule: https://github.com/teleological/camxes-py/blob/master/parsers/camxes_ilmen. peg#L1735